Author
Topic: Why Progressives Elected Trump (Read 11867 times)

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

This. Some of the best people I know are gun toting, pickup driving Republicans who fear too much government interference in their lives. They HATE welfare. But yet, if you were stranded on the side of the road, they'd stop whatever they were doing, pull over, give you a tow or at least a ride to the garage behind the tow truck, invite you in for a meal, and be sure you had everything you needed before they sent you on their way.

Identity politics are failing because the majority do not identify with stereotypes, yet that is exactly what identity politics is designed to appeal to. Playing to stereotypes sets unrealistic expectations and emboldens the worst factions of a party's base (read: extremists) if they DO win elections. Then they pursue a bunch of fringe nonsense that alienates the "middle ground" voters. This is why neither party seems to be able to hold onto power for more than 2-4 years.

As for Hillary, Hillary very much marginalized people with some very legitimate economic concerns. She routinely pooh poohed legitimate complaints at her rallies. Trump may be a snake oil salesman peddling lies, but Hillary couldn't even bother to lie. Whether it was lumping the economically disenfranchised in with neo-Nazis as "deplorables" all the same, or her bad handling of pretty much every time she's been called out on something she said ("Well can I talk?" as a result to an upset BLM protestor asking her to apologize to black people for calling them super predators in the 90s is one such example), she pretty much played into Trump's hands the entire way. I mean, no one should be surprised. She did the exact same thing in 2008 when she was in primaries against Obama while He spoke optimistically and hopefully of the American people while acknowledging the country's flaws, and Obama pulled away.

People are tired of being labeled in general. Stereotyping is pretty much out of control in America. There are lots of Latinos who don't want illegal immigration. There are lots of white people with money who do (cheap labor). There are lots of black people that can distinguish between cases like Philando Castile (totally unjustified) and Michael Brown (might well have been). Being for the nation's laws and not wanting illegal immigration does not make one "racist." Wanting better income equality does not mean someone is "socialist" or "communist" - it just means they are sick of this plutocratic kleptocracy where 0.1% control everything. This constant pandering to the lowest common denominator is designed to win votes, not ultimately effectively influence policy. And people are tired of the dog and pony show, they want results. So they'll vote for whoever gives them a shot at a result, or they'll stay home if no one appeals to them.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

You sound like several of my friends. Most of them stopped calling themselves "Republicans" in the wake of Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican party and now just use the term "fiscal conservative" instead. It's pretty clear that the days of a principled, fiscally-conservative Republican party are over. RIP GOP.

This constant pandering to the lowest common denominator is designed to win votes, not ultimately effectively influence policy. And people are tired of the dog and pony show, they want results. So they'll vote for whoever gives them a shot at a result, or they'll stay home if no one appeals to them.

I don't know how starting "Lock her up" chants or offering legal aid to someone who sucker punches a counter-protestor at a rally is someone who can stop the dog and pony show. Usually, one looks for someone with more gravitas to do that.

Anyway, going to the LCD won't stop. Many pols want to stay in power.

The real solution for this? Term limits. There are plenty of people who have good ideas. Surely we can find another 535+6 every 6/12 years.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

Look, I'm generally sympathetic to this argument. I wish liberals would stop making remarks like that and I try very hard to understand where conservatives are coming from and to communicate those motivations to my liberal friends. But it becomes very difficult to defend conservatives when they elect someone like Donald Trump to be the leader of their party. I mean, do you really think that any one of those terms doesn't apply to him? Maybe downgrade racist to prejudiced at most, but the rest fits him to a T. I think that at some point you just have to examine whether the names that are being thrown at the groups that you associate with are warranted (not by your actions, but by the actions of the group as a whole). If they are and you don't like being called those names, then maybe you should just stop associating with those groups. In other words, take personal responsibility for the groups that you choose to associate with. I mean, your description of yourself sounds more like a description of a democrat to me anyways.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

I'm a good person, who just happens to stand in solidarity and march with Nazis. I don't agree with their Jew or Black killing stance, but do agree with them on shiny leather boots, stylish arm bands, and short cropped hair. Why do people keep calling me racist? It's sooooo uncalled for and confusing. I'm never going to stop marching with Nazis if people say that they're all racists though, because I'm not a racist. That just turns my ears off. Everyone needs to lay off and let me march along happily.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

I'm a good person, who just happens to stand in solidarity and march with Nazis. I don't agree with their Jew or Black killing stance, but do agree with them on shiny leather boots, stylish arm bands, and short cropped hair. Why do people keep calling me racist? It's sooooo uncalled for and confusing. I'm never going to stop marching with Nazis if people say that they're all racists though, because I'm not a racist. That just turns my ears off. Everyone needs to lay off and let me march along happily.

except no one is killing jews or blacks. let alone leather boots, arm bands, and nazis. over-exaggeration and generalization like this does not help. behavior like this on the left is exactly what fb recently found to be linked to the russians.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

I'm a good person, who just happens to stand in solidarity and march with Nazis. I don't agree with their Jew or Black killing stance, but do agree with them on shiny leather boots, stylish arm bands, and short cropped hair. Why do people keep calling me racist? It's sooooo uncalled for and confusing. I'm never going to stop marching with Nazis if people say that they're all racists though, because I'm not a racist. That just turns my ears off. Everyone needs to lay off and let me march along happily.

except no one is killing jews or blacks. let alone leather boots, arm bands, and nazis. over-exaggeration and generalization like this does not help. behavior like this on the left is exactly what fb recently found to be linked to the russians.

The leader of the Republican party literally said that a group of folks marching with Nazi signs who were involved in the death of a person were good people.

(You should also pick a side with Russia. If you want to pretend to care about Russian agents, then you can't possibly support President Trump. If you don't care about Russian agents, then why does it matter if I am one?)

those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.

how you concluded i am a trump supporter is also beyond me; no one is pretending to care about russians, it is a problem. fb has shown (and to some extent the govt officials) they've infiltrated both right and left, do everyone and the country a favor and just stop it.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

I'm a good person, who just happens to stand in solidarity and march with Nazis. I don't agree with their Jew or Black killing stance, but do agree with them on shiny leather boots, stylish arm bands, and short cropped hair. Why do people keep calling me racist? It's sooooo uncalled for and confusing. I'm never going to stop marching with Nazis if people say that they're all racists though, because I'm not a racist. That just turns my ears off. Everyone needs to lay off and let me march along happily.

except no one is killing jews or blacks. let alone leather boots, arm bands, and nazis. over-exaggeration and generalization like this does not help. behavior like this on the left is exactly what fb recently found to be linked to the russians.

Ya, even if that was meant in jest, it's really not helping the cause.

But I'd like to go back to adjectives that skp is offended by:

Deplorable was used once and it was no doubt a poor choice, but when Hillary said it she was specifically referring to people who were going to vote for Trump. From what you said, you didn't vote for Trump, so this one doesn't apply to you. Why then, does it bother you personally?

Not to mention she said "half" of Trump voters. In context, she was making the point that some of those voting for him were doing so for mean spirited reasons and probably couldn't be won over by appealing to their conscience. The other half were decent people who didn't like his rhetoric but would vote for him anyway because they put their conservative ideology above whatever damage he might cause for minorities, LGBT, etc. ("half" was a poor word choice as well, "some" or "a few" would've gotten the point across)

Racist does get thrown around irresponsibly but in most cases I see it used in specific if/then scenarios. As in If you support X, then you're a racist. Probably still not fair in most cases especially given the disagreement on what "racist" really means, but I don't see many people saying "all republicans are racist". Some perhaps, but it's not the norm. Have you specifically been called a racist for your political beliefs or are you being offended on someone else's behalf?

Lazy? Can't say I've really heard that one used much. I'm sure it does get used, but probably a lot more often to refer to democrats and liberals. Sounds like you have a specific case where someone said this about you?

Crooked is most likely being used to refer to politicians rather than voters, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it's unfair to refer to a lot of current Republicans as crooked and some democrats as well.

All that said, I would suggest that even if a few people are saying mean things about you because of the group you identify with, you shouldn't let that cause you to vote against what you think is right. Let the candidates and the policy make your decisions.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

Look, I'm generally sympathetic to this argument. I wish liberals would stop making remarks like that and I try very hard to understand where conservatives are coming from and to communicate those motivations to my liberal friends. But it becomes very difficult to defend conservatives when they elect someone like Donald Trump to be the leader of their party. I mean, do you really think that any one of those terms doesn't apply to him? Maybe downgrade racist to prejudiced at most, but the rest fits him to a T. I think that at some point you just have to examine whether the names that are being thrown at the groups that you associate with are warranted (not by your actions, but by the actions of the group as a whole). If they are and you don't like being called those names, then maybe you should just stop associating with those groups. In other words, take personal responsibility for the groups that you choose to associate with. I mean, your description of yourself sounds more like a description of a democrat to me anyways.

So my coworker who associates herself with the Democrats is OK even though she is homophobic IMO because she associates herself as a Democrat and votes Democrat? She did vote for Hilary. So she's alright???

those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.

Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

Look, I'm generally sympathetic to this argument. I wish liberals would stop making remarks like that and I try very hard to understand where conservatives are coming from and to communicate those motivations to my liberal friends. But it becomes very difficult to defend conservatives when they elect someone like Donald Trump to be the leader of their party. I mean, do you really think that any one of those terms doesn't apply to him? Maybe downgrade racist to prejudiced at most, but the rest fits him to a T. I think that at some point you just have to examine whether the names that are being thrown at the groups that you associate with are warranted (not by your actions, but by the actions of the group as a whole). If they are and you don't like being called those names, then maybe you should just stop associating with those groups. In other words, take personal responsibility for the groups that you choose to associate with. I mean, your description of yourself sounds more like a description of a democrat to me anyways.

So my coworker who associates herself with the Democrats is OK even though she is homophobic IMO because she associates herself as a Democrat and votes Democrat? She did vote for Hilary. So she's alright???

No, she's not alright. She would have most democrats upset with her homophobia. Her views do not reflect the goals and views of the leadership of the party.

If the leader of the Democrats came out and said that gay people are to be feared, that Nazi marches are filled with good people, or that she wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country, or that transgendered people shouldn't be able to use the washroom that they want to, or that gay people should be booted out of the military . . . then folks supporting the Democrats would really have to look hard at the problems of the party.

those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.

Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.

I think this has gone way off the rails. I don't see where skp ever mentioned they marched in solidarity with Nazis. Am I missing something?

Ya, even if that was meant in jest, it's really not helping the cause.

But I'd like to go back to adjectives that skp is offended by:

Deplorable was used once and it was no doubt a poor choice, but when Hillary said it she was specifically referring to people who were going to vote for Trump. From what you said, you didn't vote for Trump, so this one doesn't apply to you. Why then, does it bother you personally?

I found it incredibly offensive.

I'm a wealthy and well educated and did not, and will not, vote for Trump (and I sure didn't vote for Hillary). I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.

Why do I find her "deplorable" comment offensive? Because she took an arrogant cheap shot at a lot of good people who simply disagree with her politically.

People like those that I grew up with. Many of who I still consider my friends. Hard working, decent blue collar/working class folks.

She was essentially sticking her nose in the air and arrogantly decrying those who didn't grow up with the wealth and privilege she enjoyed her entire life. Insulting the hoi polloi whom she considers beneath her.

Hillary learned a lesson (it was a mistake I'm sure Bill Clinton, who did not grow up with her privilege, never would have made). Even those who don't grow up wealthy and go to Harvard and Yale still get a vote. You piss them off badly enough and you will inspire them to turn out against you. She also turned off a fair amount of working class folks who normally vote DEMOCRAT with that comment.

It's a lesson the next Dem candidate had better pay attention to, because I sure don't want to put up with 4-more years of Trump...

those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.

Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.

I am going to say it one more time. these ppl are not Nazis. Real Nazis are the ones in the 30s and 40s. You can call these modern folks carrying Nazi flags something else, but they are not Nazis. equating everything to Nazis is absurd.

Libertarian4321, That's a point I made in my lengthy post, but many posters seem to be ok with it and think the Dems should just double down on the same tactic going forward.

I am going to be honest, I agreed with the "deplorables" comment (and more). But now I see I was wrong, and there are indeed ppl too far gone on both ends, hence my original post urging for a more universal platform for both D and R.

those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.

Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.

I am going to say it one more time. these ppl are not Nazis. Real Nazis are the ones in the 30s and 40s. You can call these modern folks carrying Nazi flags something else, but they are not Nazis. equating everything to Nazis is absurd.

Libertarian4321, That's a point I made in my lengthy post, but many posters seem to be ok with it and think the Dems should just double down on the same tactic going forward.

I am going to be honest, I agreed with the "deplorables" comment (and more). But now I see I was wrong, and there are indeed ppl too far gone on both ends, hence my original post urging for a more universal platform for both D and R.

I fear that you are right about the Dems. Instead of picking a charismatic moderate Dem who would crush Trump, they will probably choose a strident elite leftist, who may well lose.

Running against Trump should be a "gimme" for the Dems. He's the second worst major party candidate for President in the last 100 years. But if they insist on picking the worst possible candidate their party can offer, we may well end up with 4-more years of Trump.

Ya, even if that was meant in jest, it's really not helping the cause.

But I'd like to go back to adjectives that skp is offended by:

Deplorable was used once and it was no doubt a poor choice, but when Hillary said it she was specifically referring to people who were going to vote for Trump. From what you said, you didn't vote for Trump, so this one doesn't apply to you. Why then, does it bother you personally?

I found it incredibly offensive.

I'm a wealthy and well educated and did not, and will not, vote for Trump (and I sure didn't vote for Hillary). I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.

Why do I find her "deplorable" comment offensive? Because she took an arrogant cheap shot at a lot of good people who simply disagree with her politically.

People like those that I grew up with. Many of who I still consider my friends. Hard working, decent blue collar/working class folks.

She was essentially sticking her nose in the air and arrogantly decrying those who didn't grow up with the wealth and privilege she enjoyed her entire life. Insulting the hoi polloi whom she considers beneath her.

Hillary learned a lesson (it was a mistake I'm sure Bill Clinton, who did not grow up with her privilege, never would have made). Even those who don't grow up wealthy and go to Harvard and Yale still get a vote. You piss them off badly enough and you will inspire them to turn out against you. She also turned off a fair amount of working class folks who normally vote DEMOCRAT with that comment.

It's a lesson the next Dem candidate had better pay attention to, because I sure don't want to put up with 4-more years of Trump...

Have you ever seen the statement in context?

Quote

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the "other" basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

— Hillary Clinton

First she acknowledged that she was being grossly generalistic. Then she used the word "half", poor choice, don't put numbers on these kinds of comments.

But the important thing is she was speaking at an LGBT fundraiser to a group of people who probably view Trump voters worse than the average person. Her whole point was that not all trump voters really feel the way Trump does. The part where she said "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." seems to have gotten lost.

Ya, even if that was meant in jest, it's really not helping the cause.

But I'd like to go back to adjectives that skp is offended by:

Deplorable was used once and it was no doubt a poor choice, but when Hillary said it she was specifically referring to people who were going to vote for Trump. From what you said, you didn't vote for Trump, so this one doesn't apply to you. Why then, does it bother you personally?

I found it incredibly offensive.

I'm a wealthy and well educated and did not, and will not, vote for Trump (and I sure didn't vote for Hillary). I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.

Why do I find her "deplorable" comment offensive? Because she took an arrogant cheap shot at a lot of good people who simply disagree with her politically.

People like those that I grew up with. Many of who I still consider my friends. Hard working, decent blue collar/working class folks.

She was essentially sticking her nose in the air and arrogantly decrying those who didn't grow up with the wealth and privilege she enjoyed her entire life. Insulting the hoi polloi whom she considers beneath her.

Hillary learned a lesson (it was a mistake I'm sure Bill Clinton, who did not grow up with her privilege, never would have made). Even those who don't grow up wealthy and go to Harvard and Yale still get a vote. You piss them off badly enough and you will inspire them to turn out against you. She also turned off a fair amount of working class folks who normally vote DEMOCRAT with that comment.

It's a lesson the next Dem candidate had better pay attention to, because I sure don't want to put up with 4-more years of Trump...

Have you ever seen the statement in context?

Quote

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the "other" basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

— Hillary Clinton

First she acknowledged that she was being grossly generalistic. Then she used the word "half", poor choice, don't put numbers on these kinds of comments.

But the important thing is she was speaking at an LGBT fundraiser to a group of people who probably view Trump voters worse than the average person. Her whole point was that not all trump voters really feel the way Trump does. The part where she said "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." seems to have gotten lost.

I thought it was in poor taste at the time she made the comment. But since then, with Trump doubling down on insulting immigrants, Muslim ban, human rights abuses at the border, the incessant lying, bullying etc and most recently polls showing a large group of GOP actually supporting (certainly not discouraging) Russia hacking the election and Trump being in bed with Putin, I would say she was ahead of her time in the assessment of some of Trump's supporters.

Let's not forget Trump claimed he could murder someone and still not lose support. I mean, it's as Trump knew just how deplorable some of his supporters really are. Sort of ironic isn't it?

I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO. Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.

Look, I'm generally sympathetic to this argument. I wish liberals would stop making remarks like that and I try very hard to understand where conservatives are coming from and to communicate those motivations to my liberal friends. But it becomes very difficult to defend conservatives when they elect someone like Donald Trump to be the leader of their party. I mean, do you really think that any one of those terms doesn't apply to him? Maybe downgrade racist to prejudiced at most, but the rest fits him to a T. I think that at some point you just have to examine whether the names that are being thrown at the groups that you associate with are warranted (not by your actions, but by the actions of the group as a whole). If they are and you don't like being called those names, then maybe you should just stop associating with those groups. In other words, take personal responsibility for the groups that you choose to associate with. I mean, your description of yourself sounds more like a description of a democrat to me anyways.

So my coworker who associates herself with the Democrats is OK even though she is homophobic IMO because she associates herself as a Democrat and votes Democrat? She did vote for Hilary. So she's alright???

1. No, nobody is okay because they associate with democrats or vote for democrats.2. I'm not sure why you would ask me this. I don't know her well enough to answer it. She's your friend after all, not mine.

Serious question, could you explain the difference to me (other than the fact that the current incarnation has less power (for now))?

I can try, but it wont be good. A proper reply would likely take days, if not weeks, of work. True Nazism is a lot more than being racists, the key difference is expansionism, everything else is simply an "excuse" to expand outward (invasion).

1. Nationalism and expansionism.The real Nazis were extremely nationalistic, not only that, they also thought they had "lost" territories, so they were extremely interested in taking over "other races'" lands so members of the Aryan race might have room to grow and prosper. This expansionism is decidedly absent today.

2. Racial theories.The real Nazis saw the Aryans as the master race, and chose to view history as "constant racial struggles" with many other races, jews, slavs, etc. Later on in the War, they officially declared the bottom tier of the racial scale to be jews, romani (gypsise), slavs, and blacks, and that these races must be exterminated by force to maintain the purity of Aryan race. It should be noted that later on, the purification targets were expanded to include aryans that were the sick, the mentally ill, and others who exhibited other forms of social deviance (such as alcoholism and various forms of drug use).

Today, these people that are often compared to the real Nazis are perhaps at best (worst?) racists, against blacks, "browns", and sometimes east asians. Very few of them say anything at all about non-aryan whites, or the sick, the mentally ill, and socially deviant behaviors. And when they act in a racist manner, they rarely do so to the extent of Nuremberg Laws. Now, you could argue if they were more powerful they would do the same things, maybe, maybe not, but until then they are simply racists.

3.WomenReal Nazis believe women should be excluded in politics, and should be confined in homes and churches. Take a look of that photo again, do you see women in it? Real Nazis would never allow that, nor would they march with women.

4. ReligionReal Nazis were surprisingly hmm non-religious. Yes, they incorporated Catholic teachings but they also removed a lot of the teachings. This is a gross simplification and you are better off reading about this on your own if you are interested. Basically the worship was not so much towards the churches and god but to hitler himself, and to the belief that aryans by right should expand and takeover the world.

5.EconomicsReal Nazis were notorious in being anti-communists, but few knew they were also anti-capitalists. They are actually....sort of socialists, such as paid holidays, national labour service, state provided healthcare, pensions and other social welfare policies, and aids for farmers. Hitler himself believed (and in the end did) natural resources and means of productions should be nationalized for the purpose of military actions. I doubt very much the so-called racists today support these policies.

6. Forms of governmentReal Nazis ditched democracy and embraced totalitarianism, which was essentially an oppressive police state. Again, I doubt very much the so-called racists today would support this (they would all lose their guns).

To summarize, real Nazis were all about militaristic expansion, everything else was to enable it. To be a little douche about this, repeatedly linking modern day racists in 'Murica with real Nazis is more than a stretch, i cant help but question either your intellect and/or your integrity.

Serious question, could you explain the difference to me (other than the fact that the current incarnation has less power (for now))?

I can try, but it wont be good. A proper reply would likely take days, if not weeks, of work. True Nazism is a lot more than being racists, the key difference is expansionism, everything else is simply an "excuse" to expand outward (invasion).

1. Nationalism and expansionism.The real Nazis were extremely nationalistic, not only that, they also thought they had "lost" territories, so they were extremely interested in taking over "other races'" lands so members of the Aryan race might have room to grow and prosper. This expansionism is decidedly absent today.

2. Racial theories.The real Nazis saw the Aryans as the master race, and chose to view history as "constant racial struggles" with many other races, jews, slavs, etc. Later on in the War, they officially declared the bottom tier of the racial scale to be jews, romani (gypsise), slavs, and blacks, and that these races must be exterminated by force to maintain the purity of Aryan race. It should be noted that later on, the purification targets were expanded to include aryans that were the sick, the mentally ill, and others who exhibited other forms of social deviance (such as alcoholism and various forms of drug use).

Today, these people that are often compared to the real Nazis are perhaps at best (worst?) racists, against blacks, "browns", and sometimes east asians. Very few of them say anything at all about non-aryan whites, or the sick, the mentally ill, and socially deviant behaviors. And when they act in a racist manner, they rarely do so to the extent of Nuremberg Laws. Now, you could argue if they were more powerful they would do the same things, maybe, maybe not, but until then they are simply racists.

3.WomenReal Nazis believe women should be excluded in politics, and should be confined in homes and churches. Take a look of that photo again, do you see women in it? Real Nazis would never allow that, nor would they march with women.

4. ReligionReal Nazis were surprisingly hmm non-religious. Yes, they incorporated Catholic teachings but they also removed a lot of the teachings. This is a gross simplification and you are better off reading about this on your own if you are interested. Basically the worship was not so much towards the churches and god but to hitler himself, and to the belief that aryans by right should expand and takeover the world.

5.EconomicsReal Nazis were notorious in being anti-communists, but few knew they were also anti-capitalists. They are actually....sort of socialists, such as paid holidays, national labour service, state provided healthcare, pensions and other social welfare policies, and aids for farmers. Hitler himself believed (and in the end did) natural resources and means of productions should be nationalized for the purpose of military actions. I doubt very much the so-called racists today support these policies.

6. Forms of governmentReal Nazis ditched democracy and embraced totalitarianism, which was essentially an oppressive police state. Again, I doubt very much the so-called racists today would support this (they would all lose their guns).

To summarize, real Nazis were all about militaristic expansion, everything else was to enable it. To be a little douche about this, repeatedly linking modern day racists in 'Murica with real Nazis is more than a stretch, i cant help but question either your intellect and/or your integrity.

I'm sure someone on here can answer this better than I can, but for starters:1. Expansionism? Quit making jokes about invading Canada. Upper and Lower Canada residents didn't appreciate being occupied, we would prefer to not have it happen again. Plus the US already has lots of overseas territories that it doesn't look after well - ask Puerto Ricans how well they were treated after massive hurricane damage.2. Lots of black/brown issues in the US. Target groups depend on location and history.3. Sounds familiar - "birth control and abortions should never be available". Controlling a woman's choices about her reproductive life is a great first step to controlling the rest of her life. I remember the 50's and 60's and the introduction of the pill (or as we thought of it, THE PILL). No more "having to get married".4. There has been lots of discussion on various forums about the odd alliance between your very non-religious President and the Religious Right. And of course VP Pence is waiting in the wings. So a different take on religion, but religion is sure involved, which is truly odd in a country whose constitution specifically keeps religion out of government and government out of religion. And of course God save those who are not radical Protestants, because those who are other Protestant groups, or Catholic (Roman or Greek Orthodox), or Jewish, or Muslim, or Sikh, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or any of a number of other religions, or even worse, those who are agnostics and atheists, will all be potential targets. And we already know this government's take on LGTB issues.5. Germany was in the grip of run-away inflation. Economic policies depend on circumstances. This time around it seems to be MAGA.6. I am sure the gun-toting supporters assume they would be in the ranks of the gun-toting enforcers, not the poor suckers who loose their guns. And are you so sure the US isn't teetering on a totalitarian state? The TSA sure has lots of power.

If you don't like people being specific with the term "Nazi", can you go to the more general term "Fascist"? Then you could also haul in Mussolini (who actually did not make the Italian trains run on time) and Franco (who managed to cause lots and lots of urban renewal in Spain). Of course "Nazi" is a much easier term to choose to use when marchers are carrying swastika flags. Their self-identity is clear.

Oh, and it is dated, and one of his least-favourite books since he was writing his editor's plot line, but go read R. A. Heinlein's 6th column. He ended up using this as historical background in other novels, since he thought the American zeitgeist could certainly lead to a totalitarian state (his was a theocracy, which sure looks believable now). And 2 easy-to-think-of SF books which have women socially set back to the 18th century set their stories in the US, not Canada, not Mexico, not anywhere in the UK or the EU. I refer of course to books by Margaret Atwood and Suzette Haden Elgin, Ph. D.

Of course "Nazi" is a much easier term to choose to use when marchers are carrying swastika flags. Their self-identity is clear.

Right, I am saying the guy (in the pic) holding the flag has no clue what Nazism really is, otherwise he wouldn't have marched with women around him. To me, it's very similar to the kid (Ahmed Mohamed) brought his "clock" to school and was mistaken for a bomb. It just "looked cool" to the kid and went way out of proportions.

Whatever you may think of these folks, there are real differences between them and the historical Nazis (the 6 points I brought up). You can call them nationalistic white supremacists for all I care, but simply labeling them Nazis is like calling every socialists a communist.

But yes, if someone self identifies as one, and acts as one, ya then, by all means, call them Nazis (as you would for gender pronouns).

I don't know how starting "Lock her up" chants or offering legal aid to someone who sucker punches a counter-protestor at a rally is someone who can stop the dog and pony show. Usually, one looks for someone with more gravitas to do that.

Anyway, going to the LCD won't stop. Many pols want to stay in power.

The real solution for this? Term limits. There are plenty of people who have good ideas. Surely we can find another 535+6 every 6/12 years.

I'd love to see term limits, and pension benefits for politicians since "politician" was never intended to be a career. As well as individual campaign contribution limits, as "free" speech by definition cannot be equated with paid speech / advertising.

That said, the Trump brand was a new form of dog and pony show that had not been seen before, which is why it was effective THIS time. The independents will not fall for that sort of thing again, unless the Democrats give them a reason to by, say, nominating someone as unpopular as Hillary again.

those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.

Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.

I think this has gone way off the rails. I don't see where skp ever mentioned they marched in solidarity with Nazis. Am I missing something?

This is the problem with the left of today. They take your argument, logically extrapolate it to an extreme that you never said, and then tell you you're crazy for believing the extrapolation that they themselves created.

It pisses people off, derails legitimate arguments about actual issues, and makes the actual common sense left lose votes to an egomaniac like Trump.

No one wants to be called a deplorable because they wouldn't consider voting for a particular candidate. You wouldn't see Obama throw a word like that out to describe any segment of the American people in a million years, especially not in a campaign speech. That's just bad politics and a stupid mouth.

Secondly, there is an enormous difference between a bunch of idiots with flags at a rally cheering for white supremacy and chanting offensive slogans, and an actual mob going out and committing violence or murder against groups and taking rights away. Neo Nazis have been around for decades, have had marches for decades, and this is suddenly only a problem because Trump gets elected? All the people so offended by the existence of Neo Nazis...where have you been all these years?

And if you actually are serious about eliminating that kind of rhetoric from politics, how in the blue hell do you think you are going to do that if you start labeling everyone "Nazi"...do you think someone who legitimately feels they are not a Nazi, are going to suddenly shift to your line of thinking? Ironically, it was the Nazis who started this whole "ideological purity test" crap, and BOTH extremes of the political spectrum are the ones engaging in this behavior. By labelling people who hold a single controversial viewpoint as Nazis in everyday discussions about politics (note: I am NOT talking about the people in the marches here, I'm talking about labelling people who don't agree with a liberal viewpoint that way), all you are doing is effectively making there be more "nazis" by labelling a greater and greater segment of the population as such. All it is doing is militarizing the fringe elements on both sides and pissing off all the moderates who are sick of listening to these crap straw man arguments, isms, and fourth grade name calling.

Of course "Nazi" is a much easier term to choose to use when marchers are carrying swastika flags. Their self-identity is clear.

Right, I am saying the guy (in the pic) holding the flag has no clue what Nazism really is, otherwise he wouldn't have marched with women around him. To me, it's very similar to the kid (Ahmed Mohamed) brought his "clock" to school and was mistaken for a bomb. It just "looked cool" to the kid and went way out of proportions.

Whatever you may think of these folks, there are real differences between them and the historical Nazis (the 6 points I brought up). You can call them nationalistic white supremacists for all I care, but simply labeling them Nazis is like calling every socialists a communist.

But yes, if someone self identifies as one, and acts as one, ya then, by all means, call them Nazis (as you would for gender pronouns).

Interesting that you commented on my comment about who calls themselves what, but ignored the 6 responses to Anisotropy's 6 points. Those were the meat of my comment, who labels themselves as what was an add-on. Re the present NeoNazis, they don't have to follow every single tenet of the original Nazis (how can they, it was a German Political party with a shortened name, sort of like Dem for Democrat or Rep for Republican). In terms of their politics, look at Facism (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco) and see how close they are (or are not) to the basic principles. Of course they won't be identical, no Communist group has been perfectly aligned with the original tenets of communism, why should any fascist group be perfectly aligned with the original tenets of facism? But it does give an onlooker an idea of where they are coming from and where they want to go.

This is the problem with the left of today. They take your argument, logically extrapolate it to an extreme that you never said, and then tell you you're crazy for believing the extrapolation that they themselves created.

It pisses people off, derails legitimate arguments about actual issues, and makes the actual common sense left lose votes to an egomaniac like Trump.

I think it's been pointed out numerous times that this line of behavior isn't purely inclusive of the left. If you use this an excuse to vote for someone who actually praises white supremacist, how does that make sense? Wouldn't it make more logical sense to not vote or vote for some third party candidate? I mean you are essentially saying "I don't like being called racist/prejudice (or whatever), so I am going to vote for someone who is."

Quote

No one wants to be called a deplorable because they wouldn't consider voting for a particular candidate. You wouldn't see Obama throw a word like that out to describe any segment of the American people in a million years, especially not in a campaign speech. That's just bad politics and a stupid mouth.

Agreed. No one wants to be called a rapist either. No one wants their kids separated from them just for seeking a better life. See where I am going? And to be fair, in the context of Clinton's comment, she wasn't calling everyone of Trump's supporters deplorable. Only the portion that are racist, xenophobic, etc. And there in fact are a portion who fit that mold. Perhaps not half, but who knows?

Quote

Secondly, there is an enormous difference between a bunch of idiots with flags at a rally cheering for white supremacy and chanting offensive slogans, and an actual mob going out and committing violence or murder against groups and taking rights away.

Neo Nazis have been around for decades, have had marches for decades, and this is suddenly only a problem because Trump gets elected? All the people so offended by the existence of Neo Nazis...where have you been all these years?

NO, it's always been a problem. It's even more of a problem now that we have a President praising these folks, which only emboldens them. Where were you when people wanted Obama hung from a tree calling him the "N" word and having a now current President leading the birtherism campaign? Where have you been?

Quote

And if you actually are serious about eliminating that kind of rhetoric from politics, how in the blue hell do you think you are going to do that if you start labeling everyone "Nazi"

Quote

(note: I am NOT talking about the people in the marches here, I'm talking about labelling people who don't agree with a liberal viewpoint that way)

The moral equivalent of “Nazis” today is not ever going to be equivalent to the actual Nazis of the 1930’s. It’s a nonsensical debate to keep having.

I wonder what people used to compare the Nazis to in the 1930’s? People then probably said “Stop calling them blah blah because they are not like them at all!”

These people are bad people, the moral bottom of human society as it currently stands. They mostly suck and should be kept at the extremes and marginalized. They should not be called “good people” and they should not be ignored or dismissed as harmless. They should also not be incentivized by the behavior and rhetoric of our current president.

Someone else already posted the context of HRC’s deplorables speech so I don’t have to. It always amazes me how pretty much every thing she says is taken in the worst light possible.

At the time I thought the speech was politically stupid, and probably hyperbolic, but the more I experience of this administration and it’s supporters, the more I see her being dead on correct. In fact, more and more of the things she said during the campaign have been proven to be accurate, unfortunately. Her main fault is not that she isn’t competent, or smart, but that she just isn’t inherently political or charismatic in the way a leader of people needed to be.

Serious question, could you explain the difference to me (other than the fact that the current incarnation has less power (for now))?

I can try, but it wont be good. A proper reply would likely take days, if not weeks, of work. True Nazism is a lot more than being racists, the key difference is expansionism, everything else is simply an "excuse" to expand outward (invasion).

1. Nationalism and expansionism.The real Nazis were extremely nationalistic, not only that, they also thought they had "lost" territories, so they were extremely interested in taking over "other races'" lands so members of the Aryan race might have room to grow and prosper. This expansionism is decidedly absent today.

2. Racial theories.The real Nazis saw the Aryans as the master race, and chose to view history as "constant racial struggles" with many other races, jews, slavs, etc. Later on in the War, they officially declared the bottom tier of the racial scale to be jews, romani (gypsise), slavs, and blacks, and that these races must be exterminated by force to maintain the purity of Aryan race. It should be noted that later on, the purification targets were expanded to include aryans that were the sick, the mentally ill, and others who exhibited other forms of social deviance (such as alcoholism and various forms of drug use).

Today, these people that are often compared to the real Nazis are perhaps at best (worst?) racists, against blacks, "browns", and sometimes east asians. Very few of them say anything at all about non-aryan whites, or the sick, the mentally ill, and socially deviant behaviors. And when they act in a racist manner, they rarely do so to the extent of Nuremberg Laws. Now, you could argue if they were more powerful they would do the same things, maybe, maybe not, but until then they are simply racists.

3.WomenReal Nazis believe women should be excluded in politics, and should be confined in homes and churches. Take a look of that photo again, do you see women in it? Real Nazis would never allow that, nor would they march with women.

4. ReligionReal Nazis were surprisingly hmm non-religious. Yes, they incorporated Catholic teachings but they also removed a lot of the teachings. This is a gross simplification and you are better off reading about this on your own if you are interested. Basically the worship was not so much towards the churches and god but to hitler himself, and to the belief that aryans by right should expand and takeover the world.

5.EconomicsReal Nazis were notorious in being anti-communists, but few knew they were also anti-capitalists. They are actually....sort of socialists, such as paid holidays, national labour service, state provided healthcare, pensions and other social welfare policies, and aids for farmers. Hitler himself believed (and in the end did) natural resources and means of productions should be nationalized for the purpose of military actions. I doubt very much the so-called racists today support these policies.

6. Forms of governmentReal Nazis ditched democracy and embraced totalitarianism, which was essentially an oppressive police state. Again, I doubt very much the so-called racists today would support this (they would all lose their guns).

To summarize, real Nazis were all about militaristic expansion, everything else was to enable it. To be a little douche about this, repeatedly linking modern day racists in 'Murica with real Nazis is more than a stretch, i cant help but question either your intellect and/or your integrity.

The guy who self-identifies as a Nazi, marches with other Nazis, spews racially based hate, carrys a Nazi flag . . . he's clearly not a true Nazi. All the true Nazis are either 80+ years old or dead. OK, even if I accept your ridiculous logic . . . how does that matter at all to the point that was being made?

The point was this: The leader of the Republican party openly supports that (Nazi) guy, and the people he's marching with. You might not be a Nazi . . . but when you vote for the Republican party, you stand in solidarity with the leader of the Republican party. You condone his actions. Currently that means you stand in solidarity with the guy who dresses up and and identifies as a Nazi (but isn't a real Nazi for the sake of argument). Whatever name you call him, that's pretty fucked up . . . and is probably why you're taking some heat for supporting the party that you do.

It's not just being supportive of a bunch of Nazis (who aren't real Nazi's for the sake of argument). You also support travel bans based on religion, homophobic military policy, separating children from parents with no intent to ever return them, etc. This list could go on for pages. I'm sorry that you find it painful to be held accountable for the actions of the people that support (and I get it - the people you are supporting do truly terrible things). But I don't want to see these terrible things happen any more. You are helping them to happen. You need to own your actions and take some level of responsibility for what your chosen government is doing - and if owning those actions make you feel uncomfortable you need to stop supporting the people who do them.

Just to bring it back full circle. We've head some (long) arguments presented as to why Progressives Elected Trump. They mostly seem to be demonstrations that college campuses are hotbeds of annoying hippies who are mean to conservatives. So, we have the first word of the proposition taken care of, but the "elected Trump" part remains elusive. And none of the evidence that colleges are full of hippies explains why Trump's biggest growth relative to previous candidates tracks with old/white/no college (men mostly). And his loss of support tracks most closely with younger/college educated people. So, the exact people who are least likely to encounter dreadlocked hippies are the ones who like Trump the most and the people who are steeped in drum circles are the ones who shrugged. I've said before that this is all just attempts at blame shifting from conservatives, but it's a narrative that gives Middlebury college students outsized power as kingmakers.

Which is why it's surprising that young men marching with Nazi flags are apparently something that we should not be concerned about because No True Nazis and all that. Unless they are literally gassing children, we are just overreacting. Nevermind that there is a self-proclaimed Nazi who won a GOP primary:

So, just to make sure I understand, I should be chill about Nazis (or "fake" Nazis), but I should be really concerned about mean hippies. I don't know. This argument isn't landing with me.

The argument that did land is that liberals should get better at coddling no college white voters because they like it. And that they see all kinds of other coddling and deference to other groups, and that they want some of that action.

The argument that did land is that liberals should get better at coddling no college white voters because they like it. And that they see all kinds of other coddling and deference to other groups, and that they want some of that action.

I mean I feel like that's stated in an unnecessarily pejorative way, but yes, that was indeed the essence of my argument.

If something is a statement that would feel inappropriate if it was made about black people, latino/a people, jewish people, LGBTQ people, women or any other group that's defined based on characteristics a person doesn't chose, don't make that statement about white people (people who happen to live in states that voted for trump, regardless of how they themselves voted), and if you're around people who make jokes or statements of believed-facts like that, call them out on it, or stop participating in the discussion.

We can have a long and academic debate about whether it is fair white people and states-that-voted-for-trump residents* to expect that same protection that is given to other non-voluntary group associations given the big difference in how white people have been treated historically relative to other groups. But pragmatically, it does hurt voter recruitment and retention, and that only thing it requires giving up is the ability to make one set off color jokes (and perhaps a source of emotional venting for some folks).

*Note that this isn't synonymous with "red states" as I've seen and heard an awful lot of hateful things in the last year said about people who live in states that voted for Obama and (Bill) Clinton twice each.

Separately about Evergreen college kids* and american neo-nazis:

1. Neo-nazis, white supremacists, and american fascists are BAD. 2. Having a president who winks at them rather than calling them out for their unamerican, undemocratic, and evil ideas is BAD. 3. The best thing I can think to do about it is make sure we don't have that same president in 2021. 4. The way to make sure we don't have the same president in 2021 is to convince more voters that whoever runs against him in 2020 is less bad for them individually.5. Folks like the Evergreen protester make it harder for us to do that, and more likely we'll still have a president who (at best) as nothing against neo-nazis, white supremacists, and american fascists.

So on a person by person good to evil scale, white supremacists/neo-nazis/fascists are WAY more evil than a bunch of college kids who have bought into a philosophy of post-modernist tribalism. But it's because that the white supremacists/neo-nazis/fascists that I'm so concerned about people who alienate voters who are not already inherently racist by singling them out based on the color of their skin or where they live.

*You said Middlebury, but the protests in Middlebury were specifically targeted at a conservative speaker and, as a result, I think were much less alienating to potentially winnable voters than the protests at Evergreen which were explicitly based on race rather than political affiliation.

Your 6 point replies missed the key difference. Nationalsozialismus in English translates to National Socialism, it is a nationalist "redefinition" of socialism. One can be a racist, sexist, white supremacist, w/e, but as long as one does not adhere to the nationalist socialism ideal and willingly live in a totalitarian state where the natural resources and means of productions are nationalized for the purpose of war, they are not Nazis. Your "first steps" argument doesn't even make any sense, by that logic, anyone with anger issues and possess any sort of weapon is a potential murderer.

The TSA comparison was so ridiculous I chose to ignore it the first time.

And there had been countries that came close to resemble Nazi Germany since the 80s. I say close, because they still lacked the expansionist/violent aspect of it, despite of embracing the nationalist socialism ideals.

I cant believe we are having a discussion on what the definition of Nazis is, 80 years after the fact; this is high school material.

Don't get me wrong, any sort of fascists are bad, any sort of racists are bad, so on and so forth, but Nazis are much worse, please stop confusing the two. Again, you can call them something else that's more fitting, and to be quite honest, fascists does not seem to describe these folks well either. I do not see them as having a coherent political platform (let alone fascism, you can disagree) , and are instead simply racists anarchist.

American whites (very generally speaking) in the 1840s, 1950s, and Nazis in the 1930s were racists, but everyone should be able to spot the key difference among these groups.

Who do you think these racists americans today are more likely to become if they got what they wanted? American whites in the 1840s? American whites in the 1950s? or Nazis in the 1930s?

But yes, like Dabnasty said, this is way off the rails. Go back to the original discussion please, extrapolating anything to an extreme doesn't do anyone any good.

Your 6 point replies missed the key difference. Nationalsozialismus in English translates to National Socialism, it is a nationalist "redefinition" of socialism. One can be a racist, sexist, white supremacist, w/e, but as long as one does not adhere to the nationalist socialism ideal and willingly live in a totalitarian state where the natural resources and means of productions are nationalized for the purpose of war, they are not Nazis. Your "first steps" argument doesn't even make any sense, by that logic, anyone with anger issues and possess any sort of weapon is a potential murderer.

"Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."

Nicely done though. To prove that a person marching for white power in his nation and carrying a Nazi flag cannot be called a Nazi . . . you're changing what the term 'socialism' means and redefining Nazis as socialist. That is getting to Trump level truth alteration.

The argument that did land is that liberals should get better at coddling no college white voters because they like it. And that they see all kinds of other coddling and deference to other groups, and that they want some of that action.

I mean I feel like that's stated in an unnecessarily pejorative way, but yes, that was indeed the essence of my argument.

If something is a statement that would feel inappropriate if it was made about black people, latino/a people, jewish people, LGBTQ people, women or any other group that's defined based on characteristics a person doesn't chose, don't make that statement about white people (people who happen to live in states that voted for trump, regardless of how they themselves voted), and if you're around people who make jokes or statements of believed-facts like that, call them out on it, or stop participating in the discussion.

We can have a long and academic debate about whether it is fair white people and states-that-voted-for-trump residents* to expect that same protection that is given to other non-voluntary group associations given the big difference in how white people have been treated historically relative to other groups. But pragmatically, it does hurt voter recruitment and retention, and that only thing it requires giving up is the ability to make one set off color jokes (and perhaps a source of emotional venting for some folks).

*Note that this isn't synonymous with "red states" as I've seen and heard an awful lot of hateful things in the last year said about people who live in states that voted for Obama and (Bill) Clinton twice each.

Separately about Evergreen college kids* and american neo-nazis:

1. Neo-nazis, white supremacists, and american fascists are BAD. 2. Having a president who winks at them rather than calling them out for their unamerican, undemocratic, and evil ideas is BAD. 3. The best thing I can think to do about it is make sure we don't have that same president in 2021. 4. The way to make sure we don't have the same president in 2021 is to convince more voters that whoever runs against him in 2020 is less bad for them individually.5. Folks like the Evergreen protester make it harder for us to do that, and more likely we'll still have a president who (at best) as nothing against neo-nazis, white supremacists, and american fascists.

So on a person by person good to evil scale, white supremacists/neo-nazis/fascists are WAY more evil than a bunch of college kids who have bought into a philosophy of post-modernist tribalism. But it's because that the white supremacists/neo-nazis/fascists that I'm so concerned about people who alienate voters who are not already inherently racist by singling them out based on the color of their skin or where they live.

*You said Middlebury, but the protests in Middlebury were specifically targeted at a conservative speaker and, as a result, I think were much less alienating to potentially winnable voters than the protests at Evergreen which were explicitly based on race rather than political affiliation.

This seems right to me. If Democrats really are the masters of identity politics, now would be the time to figure out how to deploy those identity politics skills to bring some additional group of voters into the fold to create political change that will help eject the open racists (Stephen Miller) and closet racists (looking at you, Jeff Sessions) from government. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that suburban moms and nonvoters are an easier reach than the sort of people who are really mad about hippies, but I'm open to ideas. And candidates don't lose much by being skilled at pivoting away from associations with fringe groups.

If someone does not self identify as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi then calling them one is counterproductive. If someone does self identify as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi then there is no benefit to explaining to them why they aren't a real Nazi.

Does anyone disagree with this?

The whole reason this is being discussed is that GuitarStv suggested that someone who called themselves a republican (and even suggested they may be "republican in name only" and did not vote for Trump) is supporting the party that supports their president who supports a group of people* who claim to be Nazis and therefore that person is standing in solidarity with Nazis. That seems like a significant stretch to me.

*whether he's shown them support or just failed to condemn them is debatable, but I think he has shown support in instances other than just Charlottesville.

ETA: This started with a comment from @skp who did not vote for Trump and presumably would like to see someone better in the Whitehouse in 2020. They voted 3rd party last time around but could probably be convinced to vote for a good Democratic candidate as they favor the stance of the democratic party on some issues. Let's focus on that instead of explaining to them why they're supporting Nazis.

Your 6 point replies missed the key difference. Nationalsozialismus in English translates to National Socialism, it is a nationalist "redefinition" of socialism. One can be a racist, sexist, white supremacist, w/e, but as long as one does not adhere to the nationalist socialism ideal and willingly live in a totalitarian state where the natural resources and means of productions are nationalized for the purpose of war, they are not Nazis. Your "first steps" argument doesn't even make any sense, by that logic, anyone with anger issues and possess any sort of weapon is a potential murderer.

"Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."

Nicely done though. To prove that a person marching for white power in his nation and carrying a Nazi flag cannot be called a Nazi . . . you're changing what the term 'socialism' means and redefining Nazis as socialist. That is getting to Trump level truth alteration.

Right, because snope is the definitive authority on political ideologies, it's mostly used for urban legends and pop culture if I recall correctly. Do you also have an article where snope says these modern racists are definitely Nazis?

I have said it many times, and somehow you missed them, the guy with flag is not likely a real Nazi or aware of what Nazism really is, because he's marching with women, which is a big no-no according to followers of Nazi ideologies.

I am not changing the term socialism in anyway or form, look at the actual Nazi econ/social policies enacted. I was very clear, Nazism was a nationalist "redefinition" of socialism for the purpose of war. Do not twist my words.

One thing I have noticed about you, is that you are never shy in accusing someone (or a large group of people) racist, sexist, and worse even without a shred of hard evidence.

Let me put it this way, so the guy carries the flag, and shouts racists remarks. That makes him racist, being a Nazi is more than being racist, I have made that very clear. But let's say he's actually a Nazi for all intents and purposes (which we don't know, but like I said, not likely due to marching with women), that by extension somehow makes everyone else marching or shouting racists remarks Nazis?

The data you've provided throughout this thread (cornell study, murphy data) had been thoroughly refuted and if anything actually reinforced my original points. You were very quick in linking from what skp said to these perhaps racists folks to Nazis, even though people other than myself has said its way off the rails. I have no further comments to you.

Have you watched the videos of the Evergreen protests specifically? To me it didn't come across as hippies but something that was explicitly about tribe/race. And even then it's not "mad about the protesters[whatever name we assign to them]" so much as feeling very unwelcome those protesters are perceived as representing the views of the democratic party (I don't perceive them as representing the democratic party line, but I know some other folks -- and yes they seem to generally be white people although not particularly conservative ones -- who saw them that way).

Anyway, it sounds like we're in broad agreement about the ideal democratic strategy going forward, and in the grand scheme of things whether one specific group of college protesters counts as one of the fringe groups candidates need to be willing to pivot away from is less important than the overall strategy of focusing bringing more groups of non-racist voters into the democratic coalition to throw the explicitly and implicitly racist candidates out of office instead of narrowing the tent by explicitly or implicitly throwing groups of voters out of our own coalition.

If someone does not self identify as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi then calling them one is counterproductive. If someone does self identify as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi then there is no benefit to explaining to them why they aren't a real Nazi.

Does anyone disagree with this?

The whole reason this is being discussed is that GuitarStv suggested that someone who called themselves a republican (and even suggested they may be "republican in name only" and did not vote for Trump) is supporting the party that supports their president who supports a group of people* who claim to be Nazis and therefore that person is standing in solidarity with Nazis. That seems like a significant stretch to me.

*whether he's shown them support or just failed to condemn them is debatable, but I think he has shown support in instances other than just Charlottesville.

ETA: This started with a comment from @skp who did not vote for Trump and presumably would like to see someone better in the Whitehouse in 2020. They voted 3rd party last time around but could probably be convinced to vote for a good Democratic candidate as they favor the stance of the democratic party on some issues. Let's focus on that instead of explaining to them why they're supporting Nazis.

ETA: This started with a comment from @skp who did not vote for Trump and presumably would like to see someone better in the Whitehouse in 2020. They voted 3rd party last time around but could probably be convinced to vote for a good Democratic candidate as they favor the stance of the democratic party on some issues. Let's focus on that instead of explaining to them why they're supporting Nazis.

As the vox article said, the Disinvitation Database (Foundation for individual rights in education) is a pretty good database detailing all the events/speeches that had been cancelled (public non-religious schools anyway).

"The term “disinvitation incident” is used to describe the controversies on campus that arise throughout the year whenever segments of the campus community demand that an invited speaker not be allowed to speak (as opposed to merely expressing disagreement with, or even protesting, an invited speaker’s views or positions). We make a distinction between an attempt to censor a speaker and the actual end result of a speaker not speaking. “Disinvitation incidents” is the broadest category, including “unsuccessful disinvitation attempts” and “successful disinvitations.”

"Not only are unsuccessful disinvitation attempts increasing, but so too are successful disinvitations, which fall into three categories:1.Formal disinvitation from the speaking engagement, such as the revocation of Robin Steinberg’s invitation to address Harvard Law School students.2.Withdrawal by the speaker in the face of disinvitation demands, as demonstrated by Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers University.3.“Heckler’s vetoes,” in which students or faculty persistently disrupt or entirely prevent the speakers’ ability to speak, illustrated by the case of Ray Kelly at Brown University. These incidents are labeled as “substantial event disruption.”

So yes, if you set the filter to "successful disinvite", then the ratio of events (dozens total) cancelled by the left vs the right is about 3:1.

If, however, you include "substantial event distruption" and "withdrawal by speaker in the face..." (basically just set it by year), you can see the ratio of events (still dozens, but many times more) cancelled by the left vs the right jumps to almost 8:1. For example, there have been 9 incidents in 2018, only one event was negatively impacted by those "from the right of the speaker". The same trend can be seen in 2017 as well.

Overall the incidents in recent years are still in the dozens (230 if you start from 2010), and yes, in the face of 4000 colleges that seems very low still, and you are free to think that way.

But if you do, then we need to put the "faculty termination for political speech" number into context. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of faculty members in American colleges, and the number of people (50 total?) dismissed are even more statistically insignificant, not to mention the ratio.

Note I said statistically insignificant, that's because there are clear scientifically accepted boundaries in determining if the observed is truly worthy noting, and most people (even here) don't recognize that when they passionately share their opinions on something.

Edit: I took a look at the faculty termination for political speech dataset, the right/left division here is not exactly crystal clear, but I must say I have issues with the way it describes incidents.... under Brett Weinstein it says anti-minority, ok. under Trent Bertrend, it says racist. Under J.D.Winteregg, it says anti-Christian..... you can take a look if you are interested in digging deeper.

"The term “disinvitation incident” is used to describe the controversies on campus that arise throughout the year whenever segments of the campus community demand that an invited speaker not be allowed to speak (as opposed to merely expressing disagreement with, or even protesting, an invited speaker’s views or positions). We make a distinction between an attempt to censor a speaker and the actual end result of a speaker not speaking. “Disinvitation incidents” is the broadest category, including “unsuccessful disinvitation attempts” and “successful disinvitations.”

"Not only are unsuccessful disinvitation attempts increasing, but so too are successful disinvitations, which fall into three categories:1.Formal disinvitation from the speaking engagement, such as the revocation of Robin Steinberg’s invitation to address Harvard Law School students.2.Withdrawal by the speaker in the face of disinvitation demands, as demonstrated by Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers University.3.“Heckler’s vetoes,” in which students or faculty persistently disrupt or entirely prevent the speakers’ ability to speak, illustrated by the case of Ray Kelly at Brown University. These incidents are labeled as “substantial event disruption.”

So yes, if you set the filter to "successful disinvite", then the ratio of events (dozens total) cancelled by the left vs the right is about 3:1.

If, however, you include "substantial event distruption" and "withdrawal by speaker in the face..." (basically just set it by year), you can see the ratio of events (still dozens, but many times more) cancelled by the left vs the right jumps to almost 8:1. For example, there have been 9 incidents in 2018, only one event was negatively impacted by those "from the right of the speaker". The same trend can be seen in 2017 as well.

Overall the incidents in recent years are still in the dozens (230 if you start from 2010), and yes, in the face of 4000 colleges that seems very low still, and you are free to think that way.

But if you do, then we need to put the "faculty termination for political speech" number into context. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of faculty members in American colleges, and the number of people (50 total?) dismissed are even more statistically insignificant, not to mention the ratio.

Note I said statistically insignificant, that's because there are clear scientifically accepted boundaries in determining if the observed is truly worthy noting, and most people (even here) don't recognize that when they passionately share their opinions on something.

Edit: I took a look at the faculty termination for political speech dataset, the right/left division here is not exactly crystal clear, but I must say I have issues with the way it describes incidents.... under Brett Weinstein it says anti-minority, ok. under Trent Bertrend, it says racist. Under J.D.Winteregg, it says anti-Christian..... you can take a look if you are interested in digging deeper.

Yeah, that was pretty much the main point that I took from it. Whether it's coming mainly from the right or the left it seems like it's a statistically insignificant amount of events either way. The highest amount of incidents in any year since 2010 has been 42. So, seeing as there are over 4000 colleges and universities in the United States, that's what, a little over 1% (which is below the 5% that significance levels are typically set to)? And once you take into consideration that a significant amount of the incidents being noted recently seem to be instances of trolling spilling over into the physical realm I just don't think it's a significant problem. That's not to say that we shouldn't address the problematic incidents when they happen, but it just doesn't seem like a big issue to me.

The thing about social mediamedia generally is that it can amplify even rare events to the point where even extremely rare phenomena can have outsized impact on society at large. Look at how children's freedom to play on their own outside without supervision has largely disappeared in many parts of the USA in response to greater media reporting of child abduction cases. This despite the infinitesimally small risk stereotypical "stranger" abductions actually represent (the risk is on the same order of magnitude as being struck by lightening).

And again, I think it is important to draw a distinction between Middlebury-style protests based on political disagreements and targeting far-right figures whose entire raison d'etre is to spark controversy just to get people to pay attention to them,* and Evergreen-style protests based on race where the target of protesters ire is someone who is already significantly left of center.

*The Yiannopoulos's and Coulters of the world. I'd argue major protests of speakers like these do more to help the speaker's career than anything else, but I don't see that type of protests as causing any problems with making potentially reachable voters feel unwelcome or unsafe in the democratic coalition, so I'm not losing sleep over it either way.

I am not sure if that's the way to look at if something is statistically significant. It really depends on how you want to frame the null hypothesis.

If you want to see how people perceive if these disinvite things are problematic, you can frame the null hypothesis as follows:People do not see these disinvites disturbances being problematic. Then you can survey a few thousand students and/or general public to see if people think its a problem. Problem with this approach is that media exposure inevitably skew results.

If you want to find out how it actually impacts the schools/students,Disinvite incidents have no effect on security expenditure on a per event basisorDisinvite incidents do not cause more annual disturbances (protests? political activities?) on campus

you might find the last one nonsensical, after all, disinvite incidents always add to disturbances on campus. But the key is statistical significance, if there are already tens of thousands of activities, a few hundred more will not make it statistically significant.

Regarding the faculty termination, it's much more straight forward:Political speech does not play a role in dismissal (and other disciplinary actions) of faculty members.

There are really two parts of my original post (if we ignore the philosophical bit): alienated working class-whites due to poorly crafted identity politics and campus free speech issues (which I postulated to moderates being alienated #110). Anyway, I hope this helps.

Regarding the faculty termination, it's much more straight forward:Political speech does not play a role in dismissal (and other disciplinary actions) of faculty members.

Well this starts to get pretty far afield from the original discussion, but in this case I'd argue a second important question is: can we show that the reporting on faculty dismissals caused many other faculty to alter their behavior? Profs in particular are very sensitive to any violation of tenure protections, and no one wants tomost sane people don't want to be pilloried on social media. So it doesn't take a lot of protests or dismissals to have a both statistically significant and large effect size impact on behavior.

(Note: I realize this isn't directly relevant to the topic in the subject line of the thread, just momentarily geeking out.)

Edit: I took a look at the faculty termination for political speech dataset, the right/left division here is not exactly crystal clear, but I must say I have issues with the way it describes incidents.... under Brett Weinstein it says anti-minority, ok. under Trent Bertrend, it says racist. Under J.D.Winteregg, it says anti-Christian..... you can take a look if you are interested in digging deeper.

Yeah, I noticed some problems with the classification too. I mean you could argue that the students who were protesting Weinstein were claiming he was anti-minority, but there's a distinction between making an anti-minority statement and being accused of making an anti-minority statement.

Similarly Melissa "We need some muscle over here!" Click's firing is listed as "anti-conservative" with the description "Called for the forced removal of student journalists from campus." I don't think belief in the importance of a free press is a uniquely conservative point of view (and clearly it is not a point of view shared by our current president).

With Winteregg, I don't see how a joke about "electile disfunction" made in a political ad he ran during a campaign for public office constitutes an anti-Christian statement.

My interpretation of the list is the "speech type" says more about who advocating for the firing the professor than what actions or statements they made:

-Pressure to fire Weinstein came from (fringe left wing) students. -Click's tenure offer was revoked in response to pressure from the (republican-controlled) state legislature.-Winteregg's contract wasn't renewed by his (Baptist-sponsored) employer.

Also I'm completely okay with Click being fired. Journalism professors shouldn't try to shut down student journalists on campus, and shouldn't threaten them with "muscle" if they don't walk away when told to. But it would have been cleaner if the university did so itself for that reason instead of standing behind her and then being pressured into firing her by a state legislature that started cutting their budget as punishment for not giving in immediately.

Okay, this wraps up my digression into a discussion of academic freedom. I'll repeat my disclaimer that while I care a great deal about this topic, I don't think it directly influences elections much one way or the other, at least in the short term.

I am not sure if that's the way to look at if something is statistically significant. It really depends on how you want to frame the null hypothesis.

If you want to see how people perceive if these disinvite things are problematic, you can frame the null hypothesis as follows:People do not see these disinvites disturbances being problematic. Then you can survey a few thousand students and/or general public to see if people think its a problem. Problem with this approach is that media exposure inevitably skew results.

If you want to find out how it actually impacts the schools/students,Disinvite incidents have no effect on security expenditure on a per event basisorDisinvite incidents do not cause more annual disturbances (protests? political activities?) on campus

you might find the last one nonsensical, after all, disinvite incidents always add to disturbances on campus. But the key is statistical significance, if there are already tens of thousands of activities, a few hundred more will not make it statistically significant.

Regarding the faculty termination, it's much more straight forward:Political speech does not play a role in dismissal (and other disciplinary actions) of faculty members.

There are really two parts of my original post (if we ignore the philosophical bit): alienated working class-whites due to poorly crafted identity politics and campus free speech issues (which I postulated to moderates being alienated #110). Anyway, I hope this helps.

Okay, I was just trying to determine if it was an actual problem or another problem with perceptions, since different problems require different solutions. It seems that you agree that it's mostly a problem with perceptions.

Okay, I was just trying to determine if it was an actual problem or another problem with perceptions, since different problems require different solutions. It seems that you agree that it's mostly a problem with perceptions.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Could be. The studies I quoted were surveys, which conveyed perceptions, so the results were definitely amplified by media as maizeman suggested.

I have yet to see a study that investigates the actual impact (such as security expenditure and # of protests) of these incidents, so I don't really know if they are as serious as they appear. I suppose I could do one myself, but that's a daunting task.

It doesn't take much to alienate a group of people, I would bet I alienated some posters here, so ya.